Rumor has it that there is more drug dealing out of the Marshall County jail by cops; than in the street:
Rumor has it that many of the sheriff deputies get a paycheck and no
real detective work goes on ... their work just looks good on
paper...no real work done to investigate crimes..
Rumor has it that some of the detectives/officers spend time out in the
street pulling women over..threatening to arrest them if the officer
doesn't get some form of sexual favor...
Warrants have been signed by judges on the request of an officer..people
arrested an taken to jail based on no evidence at all...I know this for
a fact because it happened to a family member of mine..No one
investigated to see if the person accused was even the most
probable person who did the deed! There are a minimum of six people who
can vouch for his whereabouts...one of them is me...and if the boy had
done what was claimed..I would have ratted him out instantly....So
because of no investigation the citizens of Marshall county Ms. not only
paid the detectives for that..now we can waste some more money on a
trial....and more...How special and what a crock of crap.
What is truly sad is that when this comes up and is talked about in the
street..everyone here I spoke with just nods their heads yes and says
something like this...not surprised...and can tell me a tale regarding
Marshall County Sheriffs of their own..

[Some of the text is quite small, watch full size]
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

I got tired of my friends saying things like "Lol you and your theories" and "Omg you're obsessed with conspiracy theories". Theories this, theories that. Beliefs this, beliefs that. One word that never comes up is evidence. So I thought I'd make a video simply called "Evidence", loaded with documented facts.

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society" (1952), Page 62.

The 9/11 Un-debunked series is a series of videos made in response to the videos posted by RKOwens4 and also to respond to the claims of other so-called 9/11 debunkers. The series does not address every subject raised by RKOwens4 in his videos, only the most important ones. The series mainly focuses on the collapse of the WTC and Building 7. The series does address the issues of the Pentagon and Flight 93 some what. Other issues are not raised simply because either the theories have no merit and have been debunked or the issue has been debated to the point where all the information has been exhausted. This video series does not endorse any "missile" or "no planes" theories. It focuses on scientific evidence based from the work of Dr. Steven Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan. It is strongly encouraged to use this video series to answer any of the claims made by so-called "debunkers." Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself.

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has commented that, "The two paragraphs which do not appear historical in nature are also not very accurate in predicting 9-11; federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."

Condoleezza Rice's bio on Wikipedia contains this tidbit:

Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily BriefBin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting."[45] Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America."[46]

One commenter by the name of Brian Good on Pat's blog thanked him for his candor, "Thanks, Pat, for confirming that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo actually did warn of new attacks, though Condi claimed under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows that it did not."

Yes, there was a section that mentions "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," which as Pat pointed out, "the attacks were not done with explosives," meaning of course that it wasn't a bombing attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but the memo also mentioned "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..." It then mentions that this included "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," to which Pat points out that the towers were not federal buildings, but the "recent surveillance" would be in addition to the "most attractive terrorist target" at the WTC as detailed by several reports dating back to the 1980s.

When we look at the PBD within a larger context we start to get a clearer picture of the situation.

In November 2007, Patty Casazza, one of the four New Jersey widows known as the "Jersey Girls" who helped instigate the formation of the 9/11 Commission, revealed that whistleblowers told her "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets." Let's look further into this outrageous claim: Whom could she have meant by "the government?"

David Schippers the former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt. As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, but was subsequently ignored.

A stand-down is defined as "a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert." This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11. One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar.

As stated by the 9/11 Commission, "With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude."

The commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal.

As defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, AWACS is "a sophisticated detection aircraft, fitted with powerful radar and a computer, capable of simultaneously tracking and plotting large numbers of low-flying aircraft at much greater distances than is possible with ground radar."

In 2006 New Scientist magazine reported that "US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit."

Another excuse given by defenders of the official story is that NORAD only looked outward for threats, not inward. There is much evidence that looking inward was also one of their responsibilities, but in any event, there is at least one incident which proves NORAD could be tasked to defend any part of the skies over the United States and Canada, as well as much evidence that it is not the only time this has happened, but rather, the only time we have been privy to.

The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths cites an article in a 2002 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which claims that, "Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999."

Popular Mechanics adds, "Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling."

As Professor David Ray Griffin pointed out in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and 'babysitting' is not what planes would do with jets suspected of smuggling drugs into the country."

Furthermore, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office report on continental air defense states, "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

As the New York City Activist blog pointed out, "Admittedly this is the early 1990′s, not 2001, and the quote is from a report which recommended trimming down the force. But still it casts a lot of doubt on the Popular Mechanics claim that intercepts were a rare occurrence."

And as Griffin points out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "In this account NORAD made 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which 'involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft in distress,' not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of 'the decade before 9/11,' it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that."

A Canadian government performance report on their arm of NORAD for 1999-2000, the same period as the Payne Stewart flight, relevant to military operations in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, backs up Griffin’s statements. The report states, "If required, 'unknown aircraft' are intercepted and identified by aircraft dedicated to NORAD. Over the past year, NORAD has intercepted 736 aircraft, 82 of which were suspected drug smugglers…"

While not addressing these reports, Mike Williams of the “debunking” website 911myths.com states, "The Popular Mechanics claim that there was one intercept of a 'civilian plane over North America' in the decade before 9/11 still seems quite absolute, but then that just means it wouldn’t take much to disprove it. Just find a media report of an intercept, an interview with a pilot who was intercepted when they accidentally flew too close to the White House, anything like that... How difficult can it be?"

Being that Williams only provides two examples of other intercepts for comparison on his webpage concerning the Payne Stewart incident, and that he could not find all the information needed to draw firm conclusions on these, he should know that finding any detailed statistics on such matters is difficult.

The aforementioned entry on the New York City Activist blog highlights the following from the 2004 Complaint & Petition to the NY Attorney General (Spitzer at the time) for a new criminal investigation into 9/11:

Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD’s Northeastern Air Defense Sector (“NEADS”), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis–with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred–would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.

When 9/11 researcher and activist Aidan Monaghan sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FAA he was informed that, "...The FAA does not track or keep information about the request for support of NORAD for intercepting aircraft throughout the National Airspace System."

When Monaghan tried obtaining FOIA information from NORAD he was advised that they are not subject to the FOIA because they are a bi-national organization between the U.S. and Canada.

Perhaps those in government are the ones worthy of the question, "How difficult can it be?"

When Williams was asked in an interview to give his "strongest argument" against a NORAD stand-down he stated that, "I would point out the Payne Stewart intercept time of over 70 minutes, and the pre-9/11 confirmation that NORAD only had 14 fighters on alert at one time, none of which were at Andrews Air Force Base."

First off, as is pointed out in Paul Thompson's article "The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11," "We know details of a 1999 fighter scramble, because famous golfer Payne Stewart was aboard a runaway Learjet. With the pilot unconscious, NORAD used fighters from a number of bases outside NORAD’s official seven bases to follow the plane as it crossed over several states before finally crashing."

Just as with Syracuse something could have been done much earlier. David Ray Griffin is quoted on William's page as stating "Fighters loaded with bullets, but no missiles, could have provided considerable protection. Even fighter jets completely unloaded would be better than no fighters at all, given their ability to deter and, if all else failed, ram an airliner headed towards the Pentagon, the White House or the Capitol." William's doesn't focus on this though, instead he rebuts Griffin's other argument that the "arming never happened," which it did, but not for another 33minutes after the first two planes took off.

Regarding Griffin's former point, the article "IGNORAD - The military screw-up nobody talks about" by former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Scott Shuger also notes that there are other techniques fighters could have used with a hijacked plane, Shuger states:

It can first rock its wingtips to attract attention, or make a pass in front of the plane, or fire tracer rounds in its path. So even though on 9/11, the NORAD pilots working the first three airliners didn't have shootdown authority (they got it only after the Pentagon was hit), they would or should have been ready to try these other techniques, which might well have spooked or forced the hijackers into turning, which might have given the fighters a chance to force them out to sea. And even if the hijackers decided instead to fly right into a fighter in their way, wouldn't an airburst have killed fewer people than two collapsed flaming skyscrapers did?

Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to 'Get in the air now!' Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington.

These or other heroes like them could have and should have been in the air much sooner on 9/11, but don't take my word for it.

On pg 2 of Note 13 it says, 'Wherley had no properly armed planes at Andrews. His units were not air defense units.' There's a 'summer of threat', warnings of a planes as missiles attack, CIA and FBI knew operatives were in the country, nothing was done to disrupt the plot, and nothing was done to harden security, nothing was done to defend the nation's capital. Rather, it appears some took action to leave the capital open to attack.

Back to the Payne Stewart incident, on Willams' old webpage on the subject he states that, "To be fair, if the first fighters had been closer (as they were on 9/11) then the response time would have been better."

The reaction of these officials should have been universal and hence the moment Flight 77 deviated from its course it should have become a target for interception. As noted on Wikipedia:

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack... to take place in January 1995...

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot the men were cooking up would have involved hijacking of more airplanes. The Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), The Pentagon (Arlington County, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, DC), the Transamerica Pyramid (San Francisco, California), and the World Trade Center (New York, New York) would be the likely targets. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks, only hitting the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage).

To put it all another way, if the military can get to a Learjet in roughly 76 minutes when they are not being waged war on, then 44 or more minutes should be sufficient when they are. These points hold all the more true for the fourth plane to perish that day.

During testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta had the following exchange with 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton regarding the plane coming into the Pentagon:

MR. MINETA: ...There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"...

Even if the 9-11 Commission is correct, when they claim he arrived at 10:07 (according to the White House) Mineta makes it clear the order was given before he got there. There was no shoot down order given before 10:07. The 9-11 Commission seems to admit this.

...It seems very clear from the evidence that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the military until 10:31. Which means if an order was given before 10:20 there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down.

We need to be allowed to view Cohrane's testimony, but even if he says the orders were shoot-down orders, the fact remains that after seeing the second tower struck at 9:03 AM the National Military Command Center realized there was "a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States," but yet shoot-down orders were not relayed to the military until 10:31. Updates on These Points:

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

It is often claimed that 9/11 skeptics are quote mining the 9/11 Commissioners, as to suggest that they agree with our case, but this is the real logical fallacy. Kean admitted they were lied to and he did not know why. He can think that the 9/11 Commission's story of astounding incompetance is correct all he wants, but the fact remains that his report failed to tie up “those loose ends" and prove that ineptitude is all that was at hand.

...Although this explanation has been widely accepted, is it really believable? If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason.

And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes,
which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that
morning in painstaking detail? Griffin's response is that the tapes have
likely been doctored using morphing technology
to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos
according to a government-written script. It's not surprising, he says,
that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit
the official narrative.

"This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it,"
Meigs says. "In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and
it is very similar to, if you've ever known a really hardcore,
doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have
sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make."

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report,
now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance
notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11] Instead of 20
minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77,
and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not
notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off
the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had
constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown
out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new
explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the
hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication
failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the
introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair.
[13] Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access
to audio tapes that were not available to the public. Although the
newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new
timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the
years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different
timelines.

The activistnyc.wordpress.com
blog responds to the "debunkers" and demonstrates why Griffin believes
what he believes, but also why his view of how the tapes were manipulated
isn't necessary to conclude the tapes are not the end of the story.

A page on antiwar.com claims that Michael Bronner’s Vanity Fair
article has “debunked” two “conspiracy theories,” including “(2) That
the air force was ordered to ‘stand down’ on 9/11.” What????
Admittedly, since none of the hijacked planes were ever intercepted, one
could dismiss the no-shoot order as irrelevant. But there was indeed
such an order. The mere existence of such an order was anything but
“debunked” by Bronner’s article. To “debunk” that, one would have to claim that tapes were voice-morphed – with no conceivable motive.

Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV
interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those
shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in
Pennsylvania.

A reasonable summary.

Another Prison Planet article, NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense
by Paul Joseph Watson, August 4 2006, deals with the lackadaisical
attitude of the Navy air traffic controller who was in charge of the two
planes from Langley Air Force Base. Watson says, “NORAD tapes released
this week which shed light on the negligence of the U.S. military in
providing adequate air defense on 9/11 contain a conversation with a
Navy air traffic control operator that provides another smoking gun for
the assertion of a deliberate stand down policy on the morning of the
attacks.” Of course, the Navy ATC himself probably just didn’t know
what was going on. But why didn’t he know? Why wouldn’t he have been told?

Griffin’s main point is that the tapes themselves are suspect. For one thing, the tapes contradict many previous accounts, by many different officials, including people in both the FAA and the military.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account differs from
all previous accounts in an amazingly consistent way, consistently
placing 100% of the blame upon the FAA, whereas all previous accounts
consistently do not place 100% of the blame upon the FAA.
According to the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account, the military
was not informed at all about any of Flights 175, Flight 77, or Flight
93 until after they had crashed. On the other hand, in all previous
accounts, from the military as well as from the FAA, the military was
notified about at least Flights 175 and Flight 77 (and, in many
accounts, Flight 93 too) before they crashed. In all previous accounts,
the military also tried to do something about each flight they heard
about before it crashed. Also, according to the 9/11 Commission’s
tapes-based account, the fighters from Langley were scrambled not
in response to any real hijacked plane, but only in response to
“phantom Flight 11,” a false FAA rumor that WTC 1 had been struck by
something other than Flight 11, and that Flight 11 was still in the air
and on its way to Washington, D.C. According to Griffin, “phantom
Flight 11″ had never been mentioned in any previous reports.

So, if the tapes are genuine and all previous reports are false, then
it is understandable why the FAA would have lied earlier, to cover its
own ass. But, Griffin argues, why would military officials lie to cover
the FAA’s ass, at the expense of opening themselves up to
charges of incompetence or worse? (It is also very unlikely that
military officials could have honestly forgotten that they were informed
too late to do anything about any of the hijacked planes.)

Furthermore, Griffin finds it incredible that the FAA could actually
be as incompetent as the tapes portray. I’m not as incredulous as
Griffin is about the possibility of false alarms, such as “phantom
Flight 11,” on such a panic-inducing day as 9/11. But it does seem very
unlikely to me that anyone in the FAA would have been so extremely lax
about reporting any abnormal behavior by either Flight 77 or Flight 93
after both WTC towers had been hit, at which point it was clear that
there was a coordinated attack. It also seems very unlikely to me that
anyone in either the Boston FAA Center or the New York FAA Center would
have been lax about communicating with the military about Flight 175,
after Flight 11 crashed into WTC 1.

Griffin then suggests that the tapes could have been fabricated via
voice-morphing. This is possible, but I think it more likely that some
of the timestamps may have been massaged a bit. Doctoring the
timestamps would have been simpler to accomplish than a convincing
voice-morph.

Griffin also endorses the idea that phone calls from the passengers
on Flight 93 may have been voice-morphed. That’s an idea I personally
find very hard to believe. As far as I am aware, no families or
co-workers of the passengers have ever expressed any doubts about the
authenticity of those calls. And a convincing voice-morph would have
required lengthy voice samples plus familiarity with the person’s
idiosyncrasies. That being the case, it seems to me more likely that
the “cell phone” calls were in fact Airfone calls, and that the cell
phone vs. Airfone issue was merely an error in early reports.

Back to the NORAD tapes. It should be noted that the tapes do not
include absolutely everything that happened. They do not include
conversations amongst the high-level officials, for example. Only on
some phone lines were conversations recorded. In addition, perhaps
there might have been some cherry-picking of the conversations that were
recorded.

Griffin writes, regarding his belief that the NORAD tapes were fabricated:

But Would All Those People Participate in a Lie?

There is, to be sure, a rather obvious objection to this hypothesis:
If the NORAD and FAA tapes as described by Bronner have both been
altered, then many military and FAA personnel would know this. Surely at
least some of them would speak up? Surely not everyone would be willing
to be complicit in such an enormous fraud by remaining silent!

However–and this could turn out to be the most important implication
of the new story–it is now known that members of both the FAA and the
military are capable of such deceit and complicity. On the one hand, if
the new story is true, then many people in both the FAA and the military
knew the old story to be false and yet supported it–whether actively or
by their silence–from 2001 to 2004. On the other hand, if the new story
is false, then many people in both the FAA and the military know this
and yet have supported it–whether verbally or merely by not challenging
it–since the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004.
Given Bronner’s portrayal of some of the people at NEADS, to be sure, it
is not pleasant to think of them as consciously participating in an
enormous lie. But we have no choice, because if the new story is true,
then they were complicit in an enormous lie between 2001 and 2004. And
if so, we have no reason to believe they would not participate in a new,
improved lie.

I would add that, if voice-morphing were not done but
only the timestamps were altered, then a lot of people might not even
notice the changes, or might honestly just assume that both their own
and everyone else’s memories were wrong.

In David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposed, he writes:

And for what's it's worth there is an individual online who claims there exists proof of the tapes being manipulated, who wrote:

My name is david .
and i would like to pass information about what happen on 911, 2 days
before (sept 9th and 10th) but i would rather post a mp3 which will
cover alot of info. my lawyer told me i should wait until there a new
investigation, and its very dangerous for me to post, blog, or even tell
anyone what happen. this is very hard for me to write it down. or on
video. before i start let me give you some back ground. 1 i am a DJ, re
mixer, and producer. for over 18 years...

the NORAD tapes
was recorded on a Digital Audio Tape recorder. when loose change got of
hold of the NORAD tapes on mp3 which is a no no because its WAY better
if you get a copy of dat to dat not mp3 !!! because when you record 24
people at the same time its lock it will never go off (synchronisation)
every producer know this. if you play one by one using windows media
player its not cutting it. on a adat you have timings hr, min, sec,
(timing is a key thing ) what they did they moved sections, fade,cut,
paste,adding distortion,and a filter. my lawyer has 4 of the names on
who manipulated the NORAD tapes which all 4 are in deep S@@@ because 2
of them are cia the other 2 have no clue. basically Evidence
tampering.obstruction of justice also Obstruction of criminal
investigations. i have the names but i cannot tell no one i leave it as
that there so much about this case its mind blowing. i even got death
threatS as soon I GOT THE NAMES. my lawyer is trying to contact other
prosecutors around the country to round up other well know producers and
Engineers. as soon a new investigation kicks in i have to testify with
other producers and witnesses. i will explain more please chill out and
if i were you guys contact EVERYONE AS MUCH YOU CAN FROM alex jones ,
loose change cats,we are change, you name it. because after i post the
mp3 im gonna have to request that this topic must be deleted. on the 5th
of sept . forgive my writings much love NJ1

In an August 2006 Vanity Fair article based on the
recordings, Bronner therefore referred to these "NORAD tapes" as "the
authentic military history of 9/11." [3]

However, the NORAD tapes are not the only record of the actions of
NORAD and its Northeast Air Defense Sector on September 11. In her
recent book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11,
commercial pilot and author Lynn Spencer revealed the existence of
other crucial documentation. Yet, more than seven years on from 9/11,
this record remains unreleased to the public and its contents are almost
completely unknown.

Spencer described how, at around 9:25 a.m. on September 11, Master
Sergeant Joe McCain, the mission crew commander technician at NEADS,
received a call from the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR)
headquarters at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Major General Larry
Arnold and his staff at Tyndall had been trying to gather information
about the ongoing crisis, and wanted to know the transponder codes for
the two fighter jets that had been launched in response to the first
hijacking. The CONR officer that made the call told McCain to "send [the
transponder codes] out on chat." By "chat," he meant NORAD's computer
chat system. [4]

NORAD'S COMPUTER CHAT SYSTEM

According to Spencer, the chat system used by NORAD that day was
"similar to the chat rooms on most Internet servers, but classified." It
had three chat rooms that could be used by anyone with proper access.
One room was specifically for NEADS, and connected its ID, surveillance,
and weapons technicians to its alert fighter squadrons, and was where
NEADS received status reports on fighter units and their aircraft.
Another chat room was for CONR, and was where its three sectors--NEADS,
the Western Air Defense Sector (WADS), and the Southeast Air Defense
Sector (SEADS)--communicated with each other and could "upchannel"
information to CONR headquarters. The third room was the Air Warfare
Center (AWC), where senior NORAD commanders from the three NORAD
regions--CONR, Canada, and Alaska--communicated with each other.
Although NEADS was allowed to monitor this room, it could not type into
it. [5]

Furthermore, when a training exercise was taking place, one or two
additional chat windows would be open specifically for communicating
exercise information, so as to help prevent it being confused with
real-world information. [6] This fact is of particular significance, as
the whole of NORAD, including the staff at NEADS, was involved in at
least one major training exercise the morning of 9/11. The annual
"Vigilant Guardian" exercise has been described as "an air defense
exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled
to include a simulated hijacking that day. [7]

Paul Schreyer: Vigilant Guardian - the fake inserts on NORAD
radar screens. Are you sure, that this was "value added", as you write
about the impact of this exercise? I think this was "noise added".

Miles Kara: Vigilant Guardian had not started up that morning when
Cooper called. But NEADS was poised, the Battle Cab was operational, and
additional assets were available without the need to recall anyone.
That was a major plus as they expanded operations that morning. Plus,
Nasypany could immediately talk to Marr, in fact could turn around and
see him behind glass in the Battle Cab. When the electronic feed started
up Nasypany recognized that immediately and gave orders to suppress the
feed, orders that were carried out instantly. You can surmise all you
want that it was "noise added" but you are simply wrong, based on the
NEADS tapes, primary source information. Take the time to reread my
Nasypany series to understand how well NEADS functioned that morning,
over all.

Paul Schreyer: Just to understand you right: do you say there were no fake inserts on NORAD radar screens that morning?

Miles Kara: Just briefly at NEADS, a matter of seconds until Nasypany took action to suppress the feed.

Paul Schreyer: If it is right what you say, that the feed of fake
inserts on the radar screens was suppressed immediately, than why all
the chatter at NEADS as for example "I think this is a damn input"
(9:04), "turn your sim switches off", "let´s get rid of this damn sim"
(9:30) and so on? At what exact time was the feed suppressed?

Miles Kara: Read my article again, the one where I discuss, in detail, the times that the exercise is mentioned. (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=4685)
It was only when I did the research for that article that I correlated
Nasypany's order with the immediate reaction by the head of the
Surveillance Section. Before that I was not aware of the sequencing of
those comments. The comment that "I think this is a damn input" is
simply a muse at the time, based on years of experience in dealing with
both exercises and real world. You need to review my work on Vigilant
Guardian to gain a sense of how NEADS balanced real world and exercise
events concurrently. They were well practiced in the art and knew
exactly what they were doing. Outsiders can never gain an appreciation
for how professional NEADS was that morning, they performed very well,
given the lead times they had, or lack thereof. The best perspective so
far is my Nasypany series.

Paul Schreyer: You mention in your article the "turn your sim
switches off" dialogue at 9:30. And you suggest that the sim feed
startet just in that minute. How do we know that it hadn´t started well
before?

Miles Kara: We know this. The exercise had not yet started, and
never started. We know that the Surveillance Technicians did not
acknowledge any exercise feed on their scopes, prior. We know that
Nasypany's reaction was instantaneous and we know from his experience
and professionalism that he would have noticed it earlier if it had
occurred. We also know that any such electronic feed had to support an
exercise inject. There was no such inject, at least as of the time that
Cooper called, since the exercise had not yet started. What we don't
know is the time that the first inject was supposed to occur. It may be
that I can sniff that out from the other channels and perhaps a written
scenario somewhere, but I don't really see the need to do that.

Many prominent 9/11 researchers claim that the US air defence system would have prevented the 9/11 attacks under normal circumstances, but were unable to do so because air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD were confused by "war games" that were running at the same time...

...There’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, or even to contradict the NORAD and 9/11 Commission view that they actually helped.

However, there is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that things were not as easily managed as Kara and 911myths let on. And there are certainly experts "well practiced in the art,"
just like those mentioned by Kara, who think things could have got very intentionally
confusing that day. In a press release posted on 911truth.org entitled, "Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11," it's noted that:

The international Panel also discovered that four massive aerial practice exercises traditionally held in October were in full operation on 9/11. The largest, Global Guardian, held annually by NORAD and the US Strategic and Space Commands, had originally been scheduled for October 22-31 but was moved, along with Vigilant Guardian, to early September.

Although senior officials claimed no one could have predicted using hijacked planes as weapons, the military had been practicing similar exercises on 9/11 itself -- and for years before it.

The Panel, discovering widespread reports of confusion and delays in the defense response, looked into who was overseeing the air defenses after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM.

Going to the report itself, we learn that, "Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day."

The first bio listed on the 9/11 Consensus Panel is that of "Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter."

The WhatReallyHappened.com page, "War Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down," notes that Dr. Bowman who is "so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree... has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses."

The panel, whose members also include a retired US Navy fighter pilot who subsequently spent 27 years as an airline pilot, as well as a U.S. Air Force pilot who served for 31 years, continues their report:

One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” - Source

At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” - Source

General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” - Source

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” - Source

This study by 9/11 researcher "Shoestring" is the most important reference, it begins:

Although it has been widely reported that four commercial aircraft were hijacked over the United States on September 11, 2001, what is less well known is that while the terrorist attacks were taking place and for many hours after, numerous additional aircraft gave indications that they had been hijacked or, for other reasons, were singled out as potential emergencies. More than 20 aircraft were identified as possible hijackings, according to some accounts, and other aircraft displayed signs of emergencies, such as losing radio communication with air traffic controllers or transmitting a distress signal.

Reports about these false alarms have revealed extraordinary circumstances around some of the incidents and bizarre explanations for how they arose. For example, it has been claimed that the pilots of one foreign aircraft approaching the U.S. set their plane's transponder to transmit a code signaling they had been hijacked simply to show authorities that they were aware of what had been taking place in America that morning. Another aircraft reported as transmitting a distress signal while approaching the U.S. was subsequently found to have been canceled, and still at the airport.

There may be innocent explanations for some of the less serious false alarms, such as those simply involving the temporary loss of radio communication with the plane, which is a common occurrence and happens on a daily basis. But, viewed in its entirety, the evidence appears highly suspicious and raises serious questions. Why, for example, were there so many false alarms on September 11? Why did so many of them involve false reports of hijackings or aircraft falsely signaling that they had been hijacked? The details of specific incidents that have been reported, which I describe below, show that these false alarms must have been something more than just the results of confusion caused by the terrorist attacks.

MILITARY EXERCISES INCLUDED SIMULATED HIJACKINGS
One possibility to consider is that some of the false alarms related to training exercises taking place on September 11. There is evidence supporting this contention.

COMMANDERS THOUGHT HIJACKING WAS PART OF THE EXERCISE

OFFICER WHO HELPED DESIGN EXERCISE MISTOOK ATTACKS FOR SIMULATION

NEADS PERSONNEL JOKED ABOUT THE ATTACKS

NEADS OFFICER HAD 'NEVER SEEN SO MUCH REAL-WORLD STUFF HAPPEN DURING AN EXERCISE'

EXERCISE RESEMBLED 9/11 IN DAYS BEFORE ATTACKS

MOCK AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER IN EXERCISE USED NAME OF KEY CONTROLLER WHO RESPONDED TO 9/11 ATTACKSAnother
remarkable aspect of Vigilant Guardian is that in the days just before
September 11, the actor playing the air traffic controller who gave
NEADS information about the simulated events said their name was "Colin
Scoggins," even though it was unusual for a mock controller to give
their name during an exercise. And then, on September 11, the real Colin
Scoggins--an employee at the FAA's Boston Center--happened to be the
key person calling NEADS with information about the actual attacks, even
though it was not his usual role to perform such a duty. This curious
apparent coincidence could surely have made it more likely that NEADS
personnel would mistake the 9/11 attacks for part of the exercise.

CONTROLLER WAS 'THE ONLY ONE' GIVING NEADS INFORMATION DURING 9/11 ATTACKSWhile
an actor calling himself "Colin Scoggins" gave NEADS information about
simulated exercise events in the two days before 9/11, apparently by
coincidence, the real Colin Scoggins served as a key liaison between the
Boston Center and NEADS on September 11. Scoggins has said he made
"about 40" phone calls to NEADS that day. [37] Robert Marr said Scoggins
was in fact "about the only one that was feeding us information [during
the attacks]. I don't know exactly where he got it. But he was feeding
us information as much as he could." [38] According to Lynn Spencer,
other than the calls from Scoggins, NEADS's only source of information
on the hijacked planes was "the coverage on CNN." [39]...Therefore
the unlikely and unusual situation arose that during the exercise on
September 9 and September 10, and also during the attacks on September
11, NEADS was given key information by someone calling himself Colin
Scoggins. The question arises as to whether this created any confusion
during the 9/11 attacks, causing some NEADS personnel to think
information coming from the real Colin Scoggins was part of the
exercise. While the person answering calls from Scoggins on September 11
may have recognized that the caller had a different voice to the actor
playing Scoggins on the previous days, other NEADS personnel could have
been unaware of the different voices, and only have heard from their
colleagues that a particular piece of information came from "Colin
Scoggins."

PREVIOUS EXERCISES INCLUDED SCENARIOS SIMILAR TO 9/11 ATTACKSIt
was not just exercise events during the previous few days that may have
resulted in confusion at NEADS on September 11. What could also have
increased the likelihood that NEADS personnel would mistake the 9/11
attacks for part of the exercise is the fact that during the previous
two years, these personnel had participated in other exercises based
around scenarios closely resembling what happened on September 11.

For
example, the previous Vigilant Guardian, held in October 2000, included
a scenario in which a pilot planned to deliberately crash an aircraft
into a skyscraper in New York. The simulation involved an individual
stealing a Federal Express plane with the intention of using it for a
suicide attack on the 39-story United Nations headquarters building.
[44]

Another exercise NEADS took part in, called "Falcon Indian"
and held in June 2000, was based on the possibility of a "Communist
Party faction" hijacking an aircraft bound from the western to the
eastern United States. The fictitious hijackers intended to crash the
plane into the Statue of Liberty, located close to the Twin Towers, in
New York Harbor. [45]

Remarkably, one NORAD exercise, held at an
unspecified time in the two years prior to 9/11, was based on the
possibility of a hijacked aircraft being used as a weapon and
deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center. [46] Furthermore,
NORAD has stated that most of the four major exercises it held each year
before 9/11 "included a hijack scenario." [47] So, although most of the
personnel on the NEADS operations floor were unaware beforehand what
the exercise was going to entail on September 11, they might surely have
wondered if the plane hijackings and the attacks in New York that day
were simulated, since these events so closely resembled scenarios played
out in previous exercises.

EXERCISES INCLUDED MOCK TV NEWS REPORTSOne
might think that television coverage of the 9/11 attacks would have
convinced those at NEADS that they were dealing with actual terrorist
attacks rather than simulated ones. However, there is evidence that
casts doubt on this assertion.

It is known that simulated
television news reports had been used in training exercises before 9/11.
For example, a two-day exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland, in June 2001, called "Dark Winter," based on the scenario of a
smallpox attack on the United States. This exercise, according to New York
magazine, included "simulated news clips from an imaginary cable news
network called NCN." [48] Whether NORAD exercises prior to 9/11 included
simulated television footage is unknown. But this possibility should
certainly be investigated.

The possibility should also be
investigated that NEADS personnel mistakenly thought television news
reports of the 9/11 attacks were video created to make their exercise
seem more realistic. Unlikely as it might seem, evidence shows this
scenario is plausible.

It has been reported that volunteers
taking part in another military exercise on the morning of September 11
did incorrectly think that television coverage of the attacks in New
York was video footage created for their exercise. That exercise, called
"Timely Alert II," was held at Fort Monmouth, an Army base about 50
miles south of New York City, and was based around a simulated
biochemical terrorist attack at the base. Exercise participants later
recalled that "when they first saw live footage of the events unfolding
at the World Trade Center, they thought it was some elaborate training
video to accompany the exercise." One training officer was told by a
participant, "You really outdid yourself this time." [49] If workers at
Fort Monmouth could make this error, surely those at NEADS could have
done so too.

Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible.

Any new investigation should probe the fact that, taken together, this evidence suggests that:

(1) the Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions, and that

(2) the 9/11 Commission facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.

NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games "helped" response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, "sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped." This was clearly a ridiculous statement; if the war games "helped" response to the attacks, why were none of the planes intercepted during the attacks; what "response" was there at all? In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills hindered response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington, added "injects" to radar screens, and created general confusion.

After much research, I still find these expert opinions the most compelling.

"I knew
within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job.
Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the
busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training,
briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of
huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting
on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my
own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations,
including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state
unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial
airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on
9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our
jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our
military wanted it to happen. - Robin Hordon,
Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic
Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified
commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground
Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field
of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in
Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.

Another viral YouTube video purporting to show a pilot
forgetting to turn off chemtrails as a plane comes in to land is another
example of how baseless conspiracy theories distract from genuine
issues and cover-ups.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Whatever the issue, official propagandists and false skeptics (disinformation artists) use similar ploys, involving the use of misplaced arguments from authority, false analogies and fraudulent 'scientific' reports, when trying to mislead the public.

Whether it is through fraudulent studies such as the 911 NIST reports, or via the public defence of their overall conclusions - such as we see from members of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF) - the same strategies apply. As independent free-thinking individuals there are a few key points to keep in mind that can help us think critically about the subject matter and avoid being captured by unreasonable obfuscations.

Firstly, be aware of the problematic nature of arguments based on appeals to authority. Ultimately an argument based solely on authority does not hold any weight. To quote Richard Feynman; "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." In science, and rational argument, you must show how you came to your conclusions starting with the raw data (hard evidence or observations) followed by the application of logic and the scientific method. Taking things on faith, like NIST's secret computer model of the collapse of World Trade Centre building 7, is like taking the side of the church over Galileo's reasoned observations. Without the underlying data or evidence, there is no valid argument.

Secondly we must ignore ridicule and ad hominem attacks, that focus on the person rather than the argument. These sorts of ploys do nothing to advance a discussion that focusses on specific evidence. Name calling and attacks on an opponent's work unrelated to the topic are largely irrelevant. Regardless of the person's background, if their source material is unimpeachable and their argument is rational it matters not who they are. If you can confirm or replicate the argument then it is solid.

Thirdly be aware of the employment of trick arguments used by fake skeptics who pretend to act as 'independent arbiters' of the issue. The two main tricks are outlined below.

1. FALSE ANALOGIES

False analogies are one of the most commonly encountered tricks that are used in two main ways.

The first is in a general way designed to freeze out or stop a detailed appraisal or prevent thinking about a contentious subject before the person even looks at any facts or data. A disinformation artist will try toassociate the criticism of an official narrative by associating it with discredited or 'lunatic' ideas that imply mental impairment (stupidity or illness). The 'guilt by association' trick, a logical fallacy, is a powerful psychological deterrent to many who only have a passing interest in the debate. By telling the public that a belief in one subject is similar to a belief in another 'discredited' or 'socially repugnant' issue will prevent people, who often have limited 'spare' time, from even considering what is being debated.

The second way the false analogy is used occurs within a fairly detailed argument, when considering points of evidence. The disinformation artist will use a false analogy that pretends to account for a point of (damning) evidence, often showing off a ton of detailed knowledge in the process, and yet not actually offering a valid rebuttal. The analogy being used will not apply to the particular circumstance. This is how long winded and science packed 'debunker' or official reports are produced. They may seem impressive in terms of volume, but get an 'F' when it comes to relevance. We see this in various failed fire collapse analogies, applied to the world trade centre buildings on 911.

The disinformation artists might claim there was a raging inferno inside the Twin Towers, and use damage seen in a wildfire analogy to show warped metal, upon which a great amount of material can be compiled, whilst ignoring the fact that the specific fires in question on 911 cannot be construed as a 'raging inferno', that fire tests on steel beams, and previous fires in steel-framed high rise buildings, show negligible damage to such structures despite fairly intense fires. The analogies do not hold.

2. PRODUCING FALSE OR ERRONEOUS STUDIES

False or erroneous studies are used to claim an explanation that satisfies the official position. The disinformation artists will contend that the argument has been settled (this time not via an ad hoc analogy) but through direct analysis or experimentation. The Bazant twin tower 'crush down' collapse paper and the Millet study on the nano-thermite are the two main faux explanations outside the fraudulent NIST paper (that has been thoroughly dismantled by the AE911truth.org) that are/were often cited (even if implicitly). 911 truth 'debunking' proponents will point to this research whilst being unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the bankruptcy of these sources. Other sources like the National Geographic 'documentary' or the Popular Mechanics book on 911 make up some of the other cited material used in debate that have been thoroughly debunked.

In open discussions the disinformation artists will point to the fraudulent and erroneous studies and claim this as an answer.

*Disinformation Artist Rebuttal strategy - which they use after their bankrupt points of argument have been exposed.

General false and hypercritical (nit-picking) rebuttals are commonly found in many online discussion threads, usually delivered when their position flounders. You can easily identify the invalid nature of these accusation by following the course of the discussion and fact checking what was said. Disinformation artists will accuse their targets of cherry picking (take out of context) information, that the targets are avoiding certain key issues, that they have inflated trivialities, or they will accuse the target of being unable to comprehend the argument when IT IS THEY WHO are GUILTY of acting in such a way.

Propagandists will use this tactic to frustrate, discourage and insult their opponent and stifle the thread. This may fool some observers to the debate thread but will actually educate anyone with a shred of intelligence as to the nature of the 'debunker' and thus teach a valuable lesson.

So dear reader, by keeping these points in mind you should be able to see through the propaganda.

All you need to do is research both sides of the argument, understand the crux of the issue or key scientific principle, and be aware of the established (primary source) facts which will reveal who is being truthful. This exercise may take some time, but various online resources are available to help you speed the process. Common sense will tell you if one of the debaters is trying to twist the discussion.

Be aware that minor 'mistakes' may appear on both sides of a debate, especially when we deal with murky subjects where not all the facts are known (although key facts may be known - like melted steel). Dead ends in criminal investigation do not mean the end of the investigation. Wise observers will recognise that an error does not necessarily invalidate the entire argument so long it does not strike at the crux of the matter under analysis (melted steel, nano-thermite, freefall collapse rates).

Carefully check the facts and the evidence will speak for itself. Given time anyone can come to their own reasoned conclusions.